About your Search

( more )
FBC 15
( more )
English 320
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 321 (some duplicates have been removed)
conflict with al qaeda and its affiliate organizations now for approximately 15 years. it was engaged in that global armed conflict before the u.s. government agreed that it was in it. -- al qaeda knew. but al qaeda was able to forcefully expressed to the u.s. that it was in such a conflict in august of 1998. here we are 15 years later and we are talking about whether that conflict can be conducted with remotely piloted vehicles in many countries around the world. let me offer two different paradigms' for how to think about this problem. in these paradigms' i will try to make this very clear and maybe too clear. you need to do three things. first, you need to define what is the doorway through which i must ensure that allows me to kill these people? what is the doorway? second, having passed through that doorway, i have to define which people i can legally kill as a government. that, iaving defined must set some sort of standards of evidence and circumstances under which people so defined can be targeted. there are two contrasting approaches for how to answer all three of these sets o
no fewer than 12 times, omitting reverends to a cia warning at the time of an al qaeda threat. what made this difference from fox reporting on this is that now everybody is reporting on this, and giving the press secretary of the united states a lot heat and questioning on this now. back to this. >> raises the objections to the fact the cia had warned bat terror threats in benghazi prior to the attacks. those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house, based on -- >> no first of all, they weren't at the direction of the white house. the only -- the process, as everybody is an equal player -- said everybody's concerns have to be listened to and taken into account. ultimately these were intelligence community talking points that intelligence community, led by the cia -- john, can i finish? -- that the intelligence community has to sign off and believes represents the intelligence community's view about what they knew about what happened. again, this would be more significant if we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely i
. >> and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. >> osama bin laden and his al qaeda terrorists network are the immediate target. but the day after the attacks president george w. bush comes to the white house situation room and orders counterterrorism director richard clark to look into an iraq connection. >> when i said, mr. president, we will do that, of course, but we've done it before, and rather recently, and the answer has always been no. and it's likely to be no this time. he didn't like that answer. and he got mad. >> i was in the room during that time. and he was very adamant about perhaps seeing whether or not iraq could conduct such an operation against the united states. i was surprised when the president left the room. i said, i believe secretary wolfowitz got to him. >> paul wolfowitz, bush's deputy secretary of defense has had saddam on his personal enemies list for two decades. >> every time he survives something he sends a message to his enemies, i outlast my enemies, and if you are on the wrong list when i'm still around, you'll be in trouble. >> pa
september 11th since the war in afghanistan commenced in october 2001, al qaeda has been moving toward a more decentralized approach to terrorism. and this new movement is sometimes referred to as al qaeda two. zero as differentiated from al qaeda central. basically it involves loosely affiliated groups that have low or no formal connection to the central organization. but they commit acts of terrorism on their own initiative. and the final years of his life he served as an inspirational figure rather than an actual command. he counseled muslims that gian was an individual do for every muslim that was capable of going to war. so taking that idea one step further, a member of al qaeda by the name of obol mossad advanced the strategy of decentralization to fit contemporary conditions. shortly before he was apprehended in 2005 he released an online book called a global islamic resistance call. and in his book he proposed a strategy to of individual terrorism in which self-contained cells implemented war on their own initiative without direction from al qaeda central. he argued that it was
have a front affiliated with al qaeda on the ground providing the best figtders, providing the most weapons, providing the most humanitarian assistance radicalizing some elements of the opposition. we have to arm the opposition. i think we also need to move towards imposing a no fly zone. bashar al assad cannot continue to use helicopter gun ships against civilians. and so the refugees he's creating aren't establishing allies like jordan. >> before i move on to another topic the reporting this morning is striking. it underscores why this issue of the red line is so difficult for the president. because the u.s. does not want a true presence in syria. >> well, the u.s. doesn't want boots on the ground. i think there's no chance we will have boots on the ground. i have been for some time for arming the opposition we trust. this is very complicated. andrea hinted at this, too. hezbollah is shiia. and this -- this crescent that supports action is sunni. let's understand. this isn't just the bashar group, his sect, against the rest of the world. this is now a real full blown civil war. an
is that some of these groups are strong islamists, al qaeda and others. we've seen in libya and egypt and elsewhere the islamists tend to get the upper hand if they get in there. we have given hundreds of millions of dollars in refugee aid. we've given anti-aircraft equipment to turkey. and the idea of getting weapons in, if we know the right people to get them, my guess is we'll give them to them. >> congressman, what would you like to see the president do at this point? >> well, i hope that senator leahy is correct that we are moving closer towards arming the reform minded, pro-western rebels. this is something that should have been done in months ago. something secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of defense leon panetta, martin dempsey, david petraeus all proposed last year according to "wall street journal" reporting and the president refused to do. right now you have a front affiliated with al qaeda on the ground providing the best figtders, providing the most weapons, providing the most humanitarian assistance radicalizing some elements of the opposition. we have to ar
have real concerns. so much time has gone by and to, unfortunately, to a large extent al qaeda elements have a lot of control within the rebel movement. my concern is by arming the rebels, we could be strengthening al qaeda. whatever arming we do, and obviously assad is evil and it's in everyone's interest he go. we have to make sure the arms are not going to end up in the position of al qaeda supporters. nor should al qaeda be in position to take over this movement. >> are we closer to what president obama said would be the quote/unquote game changer to get involved in syria? will there be pressure for the u.s. to get involved? >> on the game changer, that was the use of chemical weapons by syrian president bashar assad. that the u.s. believes has happened. the response from the u.s. from the obama administration has been, we're still looking at it. we're not completely sure of the intelligence whether it is true that there has been some use of chemical weapons, but their first move is going to be toward gathering up a coalition. this is not something the president wants to get involve
to al qaeda in benghazi in eastern libya. there have been at laos five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi including the june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. all that raised red flags for state department spokeswoman victoria newland who dashed off an e-mail to her enter agency colleagues saying, quote, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. so why would we want to feed that? concerned, unquote. when the revised talking points still included links to one group, she sent off another e-mail warning we don't want to prejudice the investigation. however, an as yet unidentified national security council told newland the fbi did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple mineor suggestions. >> the back and forth between us and the cia in this regard. public affairs officer or spokes people are negotiating. sometimes we make reference to other individuals or policymakers. so that's the context i can provide in general terms howl we operate. and we very frequently have discussions -- >
years fun. >> caution. >> bill: the o'reilly factor is on. tonight: >> al qaeda is on the path to defeat and usama bin laden is dead. [cheers] >> bill: just five days after that statement last september the u.s. ambassador to libya was assassinated. three other americans murdered. we now know it's a terrorist attack. was it a cover up and so f. so who ordered it. peters, brit hume karl rove and i will all focus on that question. >> what difference at this point does it make? it is our job it figure out what happened. >> bill: but eight months later we still don't know what happened. will this giant screw up hurt hillary clinton's chances for the presidency? >> these people politically want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs. >> bill: dan rather talking about barack obama's enemies. goldberg has analysis about the foes of the president. caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. >> bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. could be a bad week for president obama and hillary clinton. that is the subject of this evenin
was, why they altered the talking points? >> the whole scenario was barack obama had to destroyed al-qaeda, al-qaeda was on the run, he made the right decisions, he would argue, in libya and egypt. all of a sudden this would move of prove maybe that was wrong, and maybe it was wrong pig time and they weren't going to allow that scenario to come out before the election. i think it was crystal clear what was going on. you will have to be a fool not to figure that out. >> let's run this tape. >> 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep but there's a phone in the white house and it's ringing. something is happening in the world. [phone ringing] [busy signal] >> all right. now some people will say on the left that, well, we just had the hearings. that's not true. all we know now is security was denied that was requested. we don't know who gave the stand-down orders. we don't know why they altered the talking points from the truth to a lie and we don't know why the president wasn't even curious. he went to bed. >> we really don't know what the president did. that's clouded in mystery. and
revisions which susan rice delivered on the five talk shows made no mention of al-qaeda. her remarks attributing it to an anti-islam film was not true given what the cia knew. shear one of carney's attempts to explain that. >> we knew that -- we believed based on the intelligence assessment ks stream mists were involved, and there was suspicions about what affiliation the extreme mythses might have of the there was not hard, concrete evidence. >> one of the people now at the center of the controversy is victoria in newland, the spokeswoman. in e-mails obtained by the weekly standard and abc she objects to the wording of repeated cia warnings about the deteriorating situation in benghazi quoting, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up on the state department to not beat up on warnions. warnings. she signs it, concerned. when the re-advised talking points included references to al sharia, we don't want to prejudice the investigation. newland wrote that the talking points didn't go far enough for my building's leadership. when asked on msnbc about the beng
al qaeda affiliate. and mentioning previous cia warnings about extremists in benghazi. in the end, officials dropped both references from the final version. the state department spokeswoman also added, quote, these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership. it's unclear if that leadership included then secretary of state hillary clinton. the attack on september 11th of last year killed our u.s. ambassador to libya christopher stephens. state department official sean smith and two former navy seals tyrone woods and glen doherty. our james rosen live in our d.c. newsroom with more on this. james? >> pretty rough day for jay carney at the white house. >> that's right, harris. his was to be sure uninvisible duty today. the white house press secretary struggling to explain why interagency team labor day through 12 versions of the now infamous talking points that u.n. ambassador susan rice delivered on the sunday shows september 16th, five days after the attacks. spontaneous protest gone awry and later shown to be false never more so than now when the drafts of
about al qaeda infiltration of syrian rebel groups. with every day of the conflict only adding to the desperation and vulnerability of the people living there. and, of course, the body count continues to rise. more than 70,000 and counting. for more, i want to bring in michael o'halon of the brookings institution. and here in new york, ayman, nbc correspondent. mike, in a column published a couple days ago, you wrote the following. "president assad has already killed tens of thousands of his own people with the most prbrut and indiscriminate attacks. the fact he might have harmed a few dozen more with sarin gas, while horrible, does not radically change the complexion of the conflict." i thought it was the president of the united states who said the use of chemical weapons would absolutely change the complexion of this conflict. >> hi, martin. well, in that piece, i argued for now trying to think of a way we should do more. so i actually acknowledge at a legal level, a political level, this does change things substantially. i was simply trying to underscore that at a military l
members of an al qaeda elite group are in custody after the security forces forced an attack. we have the latest from cairo. >> according to the police, this is made up of three men. two are arrested in alexandria, one in cairo. explosives were found in their possession. they were plotting to carry out attacks in cairo targeting key installations including a foreign embassy. the men are believed to be linked to international al qaeda figures, particularly in western asia. the news must be taken with a grain of salt given the fact that the police did not announce what concrete evidence they have linking these men to any terrorist or al qaeda activity. the men also have not been charged with anything and have still not been referred to trial. >> much more to come for you this half hour including iraq's presidential election get under way. political heavyweight enter the race. -- heavyweights enter the race. welcome back. let's read the top stories. people are dead, hundreds wounded after two car bombs exploded. the violence spilling over the borders of syriato blame. hosni mubar -- ak i
was under attack. the other was sent two hours later saying an al-qaeda-linked group already claimed credit for the attack. that was tuesday. but the talking points weren't sent out until just before 7:00 p.m. on friday night. the only draft accurately included references to jihadists, islamic extremists, experienced fighters and al-qaeda and details of five recent terror attacks in benghazi. take a look at your screen. on the left, that's draft two of the talking points. as you see, several of the bullet points referencing al-qaeda were redacted, in other words taken out. that's how the final version on the right of your screen came to be. it reads in part, quote. >> that shall as we know, was a complete and utter lie. there are three main things here. number one, why were repeated requests before the attacks denied? they knew that they were in trouble. number two, during the attack why were rescue troops told to stand down? we need answers to that. and why did the president, why did he go to sleep this night without asking about the ambassador, asking about the embassy, and why did he dec
with ties to al-qaeda participated in the attack. yet rice and other senior u.s. officials far from putting out every piece of information as they got it, continued to press the false narrative. >> our initial information and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. >> i wish i could sit here today and tell you that within days, within a week, by september 20 when we came up here we had a clear picture. we did not have a clear picture. >> another newly unveiled e-mail was sent on 9-11 by mark thompson, the operations officer at the state department counterterrorism bureau with the u.s. annex in benghazi about to face mortar fire, he wrote to patrick kennedy's deputy, wondering why the undersecretary swiftly rejected the option that the f.b.i. and the defense department special operations command had recommended that night. the deployment of the foreign emergency support team, or fest. >> you wrote, quote, i am told pat kennedy participated in a senior conference call with the white house and discourage
include a mention of al qaeda because of a concern that congress would use that against the state department. >> i think that's not -- i think, the state department has said that this spokesman's office raised two primary concerns about the talking points. the points went further in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments suggested. and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation. that concern was expressed in other quarters. not just at the state department. >> specifically concern about giving members something to use against the state department. >> this was a process where there was an effort underway. an interagency process to develop information that could be delivered by government officials, both administrative, about not going beyond what we knew. >> the language of that e-mail is pretty clear. and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address the concerns. no matter who ended up providing the talking points, it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state department on the
-mail criticizing the official talking points any and all references to al al-qaeda, pro forma and any mentions prior to the attack was all scrubbed out of the talking points. thankfully the media is beginning to pay attention that we on this program have been saying for months that an administration wide coverup took place after benghazi so obama could get reelected. at the white house press briefing jay carney was asked whether or not political calculations were made during the talking points review process. watch this. >> the language that is e-mail is pretty clear. seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state department on the cia talking points. >> but again i think you are forgetting a couple of things here. the whose as i said made maid one minor change to the talking points drafted by and produced by the cia. >> concern was concern about how congress would react a factor in the talks? >> if you look at the development of the talking points, the answer to that is no. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made were stylistic. is it a stylistic cha
points that apparently scrubbed references to al-qaeda. doug mckelway has the latest from washington. >> reporter: really tough day for jay day any yesterday. for the first time since the benghazi attack happened. white house press corps and not just fox ganged up on him. that 12 revisions were made in the benghazi talking points, first issued by the c.i.a. the first draft said, quoting, we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al-qaeda participated in the attack. the final draft which u.n. ambassador susan rice made no mention of al-qaeda. her remarks attributing to the anti-islam film. here is one of his attempts to explain that. >> we knew based on the intelligence that extremists were involved. there were suspicions about what affiliations those extremists might have, but there was not hard concrete evidence. >> bob: zbloor one of the people at the center, victoria newland. in emails obtained by the weekly standard and abc, she objects to the wording of repeated warnings about the deteriorating situation in benghazi. early draft could be abused by members of congress to be
. >> al qaeda elements have a lot of control within the rebel movement. my concern is by arming the rebels, we could be strengthening al qaeda. if we're going to arm the rebels, we have to make sure that those arms are not going to end up in the possession of al qaeda supporters. >> between the competing voices at home, the hawks and the skeptics, the humanitarians and the isolationists and the swelling number of players, bashar al assad, the free syrian army, al qaeda, iran, hezbollah and israel -- it is clear that there are no easy options for a white house that remains stuck in the middle. one thing, however, is for certain, over 70,000 people have already died in the conflict in syria and that number will only rise as the white house continues its deliberation. joining me today, washington bureau chief of the the "huffington post," ryan grimm, nbc news foreign correspondent, ayman mohyeldin. form erp assistant secretary of state under president clinton, jamie reuben and managing editor at the grio.com and msnbc contributor, joy reid. jamie, i want it start with you, you have a piece in
and said they were made for purely political reasons. she objected to this cia references to al qaeda groups as well as cia warnings about terrorist threats in the months preceding the september 11th attack. one e-mail said "the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress ought to be dip the state department for those were not paying attention to warnings so why would we want to be that? >> and those references were scrubbed she noted the changes did not resolve all of my issues of the building leadership. that being of course, secretary of state hillary clinton. "the weekly standard" steve it pays one negative stephen hays that petraeus was shocked when he reread the talking points as the original c.i.a. assessment was blocked to call it an attack from islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda. jay kearney today responded to the new revelations of a lengthy and testy press briefing where he continuously tried to point* the finger away from president obama. >> it was the state department. >> this process everybody is unequal players said ever buddies concerns have to be list
to evidence that an al qaeda-affiliated group took part in the attack and that the cia had warned of al qaeda threats in benghazi. secretary clinton's spokesperson objected, saying in an e-mail obtained by abc, that the information, quote, "could be abused by members of congress to beat up on the state department for not paying attention to warnings. so, why would we want to feed that?" after those objections were raised, all references to al qaeda and the cia warnings were deleted from the cia talking points. cia original version included references to al qaeda. those were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft. >> and the cia wrote another draft -- >> reporter: based on input from the state department. >> well, but here's what i've been saying, jon -- >> reporter: you deny that? >> no, jon. >> reporter: republicans say it was all about protecting president obama from a bad story during the height of a re-election campaign and to divert criticism from the state department for not doing enough to protect the consulate. and hillary clinton is already taking fire from republicans. >> i
included a specific reference to, quote, islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participating in the attack. that was eventually scrubbed. also, there was this paragraph as abc reported today. "the agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al qaeda in benghazi and eastern libya. these noted that since april, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi by unidentified assailants including june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. we can't rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the u.s. facilities also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." in an e-mail according to abc, state department spokesperson victoria nuland took issue because it, quote, be used by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings. why would we want to feed that, either? the entire paragraph was eventually scrub. all the news today made for a testy white house press briefing with press secretary jay carney clearly playing defense on the talking points. >> jay, you tol
supported by al qaeda factions and the support of russia, it is right now, the balance of power, is more or less with the regime. it may change the balance of power today, though. this is a very strong warning to assad. >> our understanding from u.s. officials and again, this is preliminary reports, so we are taking this from unnamed officials. i think there is a little bit of a grain of salt we should approach this with. but u.s. officials told msnbc news that the weapons were on their way out from syria to lebanon to hezbollah. there's been concern growing, not just among israel, but other players in the u.s. about hezbollah increasing involvement in the war happening in syria. >> exactly. and one of the big concerns has been scud missiles. we know that scuds can reach not only israel but also american forces, nato forces, in turkey. the scuds have quite a a range. and syria has a huge arsenal of chemical weapons. so if there is concern that scuds could deliver weapons to israel via leb lebanon, israel has been clear that they won't take any action against any use of chemical weapons.
that syria could become a rogue state controlled by al qaeda and al qaeda-affiliated groups? >> i think it's unlikely and i'm basing this more on a gut feeling than anything else. i mean, syria's had a long history as a secular mediterranean country. the extremists have some influence now because they're very effective fighters. but i think at the end of the day this is not afghanistan and i just think it's unlikely that syria will be ruled by a caliphate. what's more likely is chaos. there won't be anybody in charge. >> rose: is that worse or -- chaos may be worse, even. >> well, sooner or later -- >> rose: because everybody else comes in to take advantage of chaos. >> yeah, that's the danger. and next door iraq is on the verge of breaking out in fighting again between maliki and the kurds to the north and sunnis to the west so one could imagine a real set of political chaos and fighting across the region. >> rose: are we looking at the middle east at a time of which america has no real power that it wants to use to change a very, very unattractive circumstance? >> i think -- you know, wh
is that this notion that this was immediately seen as a coordinated terrorist operation probably are links to al qaeda, that did not fit the obama administration's narrative at the time. this was in the final weeks of the presidential election. and that's why they decided to supposedly clean it up. and that's a pretty serious charge. >> here's the thing, wolf, you know, i'm not in washington dealing with the politics of this. and as you've just discussed it is a very partisan issue, but there are facts that also need to be taken to grip. that is the consistent narrative from libya, from the officials in libya starting with the president of the national congress, mohamed mogarif and the justice minister today and intelligence officials, they from the very beginning when asked said they believe this was a pre-planned terrorist attack on a competing network on cbs september 16th the president of libya was in new york for the general assembly meetings. and he said that dozens had been arrested since the attack five days previously and he believed they'd been planning -- they'd been in the country for mont
on the incident were heavily edited to delete any reference to al qaeda or previous terror warnings. five days after the attack, u.n. ambassador susan rice drew on the talking points, saying the incident was a muslim protest that got out of hand. this week, at a house hearing, gregory hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in libya, said he was shocked by rice's statement. >> i was stunned, my jaw dropped and i was embarrassed. >> did she talk to you before she went on the five sunday talk shows? >> no, sir. >> sreenivasan: white house officials-- from spokesman jay carney to vice president biden-- have maintained the talking points came from intelligence agencies. the abc account says the cia's initial talking points draft did mention a spontaneous protest, but it also said islamist militants were involved. it was revised at least a dozen times, mainly at the behest of the state department. spokeswoman victoria nuland e- mailed white house officials and the intelligence community urging that references to terror and al-qaeda be removed. nuland argued that it "could be abused by members of
on other extremist groups. other fear is al-qaeda will capture some of them. already there is some evidence that the syrian military has used chemical weapons on a small scale against rebels. president obama said it would cross a red line, but he stopped short of saying what the action would be. this week the white house ruled output go american troops on the ground in syria, but the u.s. has started providing non-military support for the rebels and it could grow in a few weeks. white house is still debating to arm some rebel groups but the white house is taking a cautious approach. >> gregg: thanks very much. >> heather: the u.s. has provided non-lethal aid to insurgents in syria stepping up support lately. the white house has resisted calls from some lawmakers to arm the rebels or establish a new no fly zone to help them out. chuck hagel said the administration is rethinking it's position. >> we are exploring all options to achieve the objectives i just talked about. these are not static situations. you must always look at different options based on the reality on the ground and based on
we are now hearing that they were perhaps three al-qaeda professional terrorist operatives on the scene there in benghazi that night? >> of course, we think it is important. we think it is pivotal and critical information. got to remember the administration would like the american people to believe and just reiterating the fact that -- their fact that al-qaeda is now defunct and nonoperational. that is not true. right now without answers from the administration. >> geraldo: do you believe lives could have been saved if there had been a different response to the emergency as it was unfolding that night? >> i sure hope to believe so. i can tell you as a congressman and member of the foreign affairs committee who has asked we don't know what assets might have been available, who was summoned, who weren't summoned. we don't know those answers so we are is skeptical about the administration claim there is nothing that could be done. shouldn't we be able to verify that to self-assure ourselves and important to know for people serving in the future what services and assets are ava
extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack. invest the first draft of talking points to the cia on september 14. but after objections from state and after the white house had a meeting, you can see the talking points -- it's a little hard to see on the screen, there's lots of lines drawn through them. heavily edited and all mention islamic extremists were taken out. congressman lynch, were the talking points the administration put out in advance rice's appearance, weren't those talking points scrubbed. >> they certainly weren't accurate. i don't know what the process was there. but absolutely. they were false. they were wrong. there were no protests outside of benghazi compound there. this was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. so any statements that this was sort of like the, you know, the other protests that we saw in cairo and other embassies, this was not that type of case. >> so briefly, and we're running out of time congressman lynch, how do you explain the fact that sunday, u.n. ambassador rice came on this show and four other sunday show
, the continued threats from al qaeda and libya and elsewhere around the world, it just couldn't deal with it. if that's the problem. there's no cure for it. if it was merely a political coverup there can be a political cost to pay. >> neil: now, you think it goes up to the president. that he can argue, i'm taking care of a lot of things, i'm the president of the united states. have people at the state department handling this, and security agencies, what have you, that it never got up to his level. >> well, we should find out the answer to that. the famous watergate question from howard baker, what did the president know and when did he know it? of course the president sits on top of a huge bureaucracy but his personal representative in libya was killed. that is what an ambassador this, president's personal representative. and if he tide not become at least for a short time the libya desk photographer, then i don't think he was performing his duty. so if he wasn't involved in it, then i think it shows a lack of management, judgment, and political leadership that is in some ways just as damni
references to al qaeda and affiliate terrorist organizations. mr. carney said that the white house involvement in those revisions was very minor. plying the state department under hillary clinton was the primary editing force. the state says they didn't want to highlight al qaeda involvement because it might impede the investigation. a fairly incredible assertion. what jay carney attempted to do today was convince the world that there was initial confusion about who attacked the american ambassador and killed him and that the white house was acting responsibly in avoiding placing direct blame. the fact remains that ambassador rice did place blame for the attack on the anti-islamic video released in the u.s.a. that was her primary focus. so summing up, no admission of wrongdoing by the obama administration. charges that the benghazi controversy is politically motivated and no release of emails that might clarify the situation the white house saying some congress people have seen them and that's all that's necessary. and that's the memo. now, for the top story tonight. let's bring in
. already there are copies of the al qaeda magazine, inspire. the same magazine that had instructions for how to build pressure cooker bombs. was she aware this material was on her computer? was she aware her husband was downloading this kind of stuff? if she was, why didn't she say anything about it? we're really still in the dark about exactly what she knew ahead of time. and the degree to which she herself was involved in any kind of radical activities. it is hard to say just from the computer alone. this could have been her husband downlowing it. either way, she needs to be able to answer these questions. if wasn't her, if it wasn't her that downloaded this, who did and why and how come she did not know about it? >> and being accused of getting rid of the evidence, do you think this fact pattern suggests there might be anyone else implicated? >> heretofore, it has been three sgeeks there is no organization who has taken claim for this attack. al qaeda has not. no chechen group has. every single chechen jihadi group has distanced themselves from it. there is always the possibility
very well have been ansar al sharia that was involv involved, al qaeda, itself, or other al qaeda affiliates. this is an effort to accuse the administration of hiding something that we did not hide. in fact, we spoke publicly about it. the secretary, i mean, the ambassador to the united nations who was the lead administration official talking about this that weekend, spoke openly about that possibility, and every bit of information that's come out about what we know happened in benghazi has been a result of information provided by various agencies of the administration. this skrainvestigation, in fact continues to this day. last week the fbi released photographs of individuals they believe might be connected to the attack on benghazi in their effort to bring those people accountable. that's the important business that remains to be done when it comes to benghazi. >> just a clarification -- >> last one. >> when you said what you said, did you know that this had gone through 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made? were you aware of that at the time? >> john, ther
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 321 (some duplicates have been removed)